An enigmatic Rome issue

[Per D]

I’m equally excited and puzzled by this new acquisition.

CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES Laureate head right.
SAC MON VRB AVGG ET CAESS NN Moneta standing left, holding scales in right hand, cornucopiae on left arm. Crescent in right field, R-wreath-Q in exergue.
9,39 g; Ø 28,5 mm; Die axis ↑↑
RIC VI: 160; Drost 72b; Sear 15549

The coin belongs to a small and enigmatic group of Rome folles (RIC 160 – 161), probably struck shortly after Maxentius’ coup in late October 306. Some of these coins, like this one, have a small crescent on the reverse, while others have the same mintmark as the final issue for the third Tetrarchy (-/-/R-wreath-P-Q).

Most puzzling with these folles is the absence of Maxentius himself (they were only issued for Maximian and Constantine) but equally strange is that Maximian is given the titles of an active Augustus (IMP P F AVG), just like in the first issues from Carthage. (Perhaps this reflects some confusion about what role Maximian was supposed to play.)

The rarity of these coins is also quite remarkable. I’ve only been able to track down seven confirmed specimens of the crescent type: two with the obv. legend IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG (both from off. P) and five with CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES (one from off. T and four from Q). There are also two known specimens struck for Maximian but without the crescent. Curiously enough, there doesn't seem to be any die-links within this group.

Another curiosity is that the Rome mint didn’t issue any more folles until mid 307. The standard explanation for this gap (not entirely convincing) is that the mint was busy pumping out the gold and silver necessary to guarantee the loyalty of Maxentius' supporters

There is a final riddle wrapped up in this enigma: One of the two crescent coins with obv. legend IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG was posted by Heliodromus over at FORVM back in 2008, after it had been offered for sale on eBay (as far as I know the coin hasn’t been published elsewhere since). The portrait clearly isn’t of Maximian. It could be of Galerius (as Heliodromus suggested), but it also looks very much like later portraits of Maxentius. Neither alternative makes much sense, really, so I guess it's an engraver's goof.

[Heliodromus]

Congratulations on the aquisition!

I was the underbidder on that coin (I'm also Heliodromus over on FORVM).

You've done better than me in tracking down examples of this type. I was only able to find the specimen sold by Ancient Imports, on attached graphic (which I posted before in reply to a different topic). I'd be interested to see the other Constantine specimens you were able to find if you're able to share the pictures and details.

It seems (correcting RIC) that Maxentius may have taken control of the Rome mint during the issue preceding this crescent one. In that issue (RIC 159 etc) we see both:

A) Severus II, Galerius and Constantine (in an angular bust style somewhat recalling that of his father at Rome which he'd just replaced). See rows 1 & 2 of graphic.

... and also:

B) Maximianus (unlisted) and Constantine with new Maxentius look-alike bust. See row 3.

In the crescent issue we see Maximianus and Constantine, but also Galerius (unlisted) continued.

The fact that this tetrarchic "avgg et caess" type was continued at all by Maxentius shows his thinking at this early stage - perhaps thinking (rather unrealistically) that he may be able to fit into the tetrarchic system the way that Constantine had been able to (at least getting accepted by Galerius). I'd assume that Galerius's inclusion in the crescent issue is deliberate, and the bust type is the same for him in the preceding issue.

After the crescent issue there is then another unlisted issue with star in place of crescent. I'm only aware of two specimens from this issue, both for Constantine, one from the Misurata hoard, and Busso 419 # 807. Presumably this issue also includes Maximianus, and possibly still Galerius.

The apparent absence of Maxentius from the earliest Rome bronze coinage is interesting, especially since the bust style used for Constantine seems to be the same as we shortly see for Maxentius on Conservatores Vrb Svae. Perhaps the Maxentian bust being copied is from the gold coinage, which seems to have started earlier (PRINC INVICT for Maxentius), or conceivably there were parallel issues with Conservatores Vrb Svae, including Maxentius, struck in parallel with Sac Mon.

Did you notice the Parthenico hoard Conservatores Vrb Save medallion about to be sold by Heritage ? They have an unusually informative description of it, giving the historical background.

Ben

[Per D]

Hi Ben,

Thank you for another informative comment!

All the coins I’ve found, except the eBay one, are listed in Drost’s Le monnayage de Maxence, so it was quite easy:

Without crescent
1.   P   IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG   Drost 71a.   Private coll.
2.   S   IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG   Drost 71a;   Čentur hoard
3.   T   CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES   RIC 160   Several known specimens
4.   Q   CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES   RIC 160   Several known specimens

With crescent
5.   P   IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG   RIC 161   BM
6.   P   IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG   -   eBay 2008
6.   T   CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES   RIC 160   Oxford
7.   Q   CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES   RIC 160   Vienna
8.   Q   CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES   RIC 160   Vienna
9.   Q   CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES   RIC 160   Private coll. 1
10.   Q   CONSTANTINVS NOB CAES    RIC 160   Private coll. 2

Unconfirmed, without crescent   
11   S   IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG   RIC 161   BM (?)
12.   S   IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG   RIC 161 n 3   Oxford
            (King p. 66, n. 4)

Unconfirmed, with crescent
13   P   IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG   RIC 161   Vienna
            (Jeločnik 1973)


My guess is that the mint continued with the long -/-//R-wreath-P-Q issue for a short while after the coup, including Maximian but dropping Galerius and Severus (several of the folles struck for Constantine and Maximinus could have been included, though). This would then have been followed by the crescent coins, for some unknown reason without Maxentius and Maximinus.

The IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG legend could imply that the procurator monetae, just like his colleague in Carthage, assumed that Maximian was about to return as active Augustus, and perhaps he wanted to wait and see what role Maxentius would play. (We see this pattern in other revolutions as well: no one seems to know what’s going on or where things are heading.)

Following Mats Cullhed and others, I don’t think Maxentius had any hope of squeezing himself into the Tetrarchy as the mints under his control immediately ceased striking for both Galerius and Severus.

I wasn’t aware of that Constantine follis with a star on the reverse (did you find the picture in Stefania Santangelo’s chapter in Il tesoro di Misurata ? (I’ve been to cheap to get a copy of that book, but I probably should.) It would be tempting to include that type in an earlier series (RIC 120 – 124), but that would completely screw up the chronology.

Yeah, I was told about the Heritage auction. Sour grapes, perhaps, but I find these unassuming, corroded bronzes from eBay just as interesting as the fancy gold medallions.

/Per

[Heliodromus]

Thanks, Per !

I wasn’t aware of that Constantine follis with a star on the reverse (did you find the picture in Stefania Santangelo’s chapter in Il tesoro di Misurata ? (I’ve been to cheap to get a copy of that book, but I probably should.) It would be tempting to include that type in an earlier series (RIC 120 – 124), but that would completely screw up the chronology.

I don't have the Misurata book, or Drost, although I've got both "favorited" on MA Shops. I'm also too cheap ! 

There are a couple of glimpses of the Misurata hoard in these two papers (the star issue is from the second one).

https://www.academia.edu/38429963/Il_tesoro_monetale_di_Suq_el_Kedim_Misurata_Libia_

https://www.academia.edu/465295/Nummi_inediti_o_rari_del_tesoro_di_Misurata_Libia_

The star issue has to come last because of the bust style. If it was earlier it would have that early angular style for Constantine.

I agree - just as much (maybe more in general) history in the bronze types. The Heritage listing is interesting because of the background on Maxentius's rebuilding on the temple of Roma & Venus. Normally it seems these auction blurbs are just a page filler as required for expensive coins, but this one is actually informative. Gotta say if I was selling that coin I'd have sent it to Leu or Triton, not to a random Heritage auction !

Ben

[Per D]

Thank you for the links! I've been waiting for more pdf copies of Misurata material to appear. (Another book for the wish list would be Malingue's forthcoming study on Carthage. It's his dissertation, which seems impossible to get hold of, but it's supposed to be published as a book.)
 
I haven't studied these Rome issues closely enough to have much to say about the bust styles. Looking at my trays and at what's available online, I get the feeling that several die cutters, each with their own distinct style, could have been at work simultaneously. (This certainly seems to be the case with the later, massive CONSERV VRB SVAE emissions where some, but not all, busts look like villains from a 1940s comic book)

The ancient coins seem to be a relatively small part of this 'Paramount Collection', so maybe that's why it was decided to have Heritage sell it, rather than a more specialized auction house.

I just found another mystery coin: a Galerius SAC MON with mintmark -/*//R-wreath-S. It's in the Vienna collection (misdescribed as RIC VI: 158a). I attach a photo of my 132b/158a for comparison.

/Per

[Heliodromus]

I just found another mystery coin: a Galerius SAC MON with mintmark -/*//R-wreath-S. It's in the Vienna collection (misdescribed as RIC VI: 158a).

Thanks! I hadn't noticed that one.

RIC has it as recorded as a footnote to RIC 132b (same as 158a, but earlier in the issue - alongside Severus as caesar vs augustus).

It seems that this is either:

1) A blundered RIC 132b. The R wreath P  issue was preceded by RP *, so maybe the engraver mistakenly added a star by force of habit from the prior issue.

OR

2) If intentional, it would be another unlisted Maxentian issue.

Unless we see this "issue" for another emperor, or at least another reverse die, then I'm more inclined to see it as an error. It would seem strange to have the already scarce crescent issue followed by TWO equally rare additional issues in rapid succession.

Ben

[Per D]

Ah, I missed that footnote!

I agree this is most likely an error coin, possibly one of the first from the R/wreath//P-Q series. If intentional, probably some sort of brief, transitional series between RIC 124 and 132 (but that seems unlikely, unless a few more show up).

/Per

[Heliodromus]

Here's another paper by Garraffo discussing the composition of the Misurata hoard.

https://www.academia.edu/38325972/Sull_atipicit%C3%A0_del_Tesoro_di_Misurata?email_work_card=title

It's a PDF document in Italian, but Google translate works well enough to at least get the gist of it.

Just save the document to your computer, then from Google translate click on the "Documents" (vs "Text") tab, then select the file you saved to upload.

https://translate.google.com/

Ben

[Per D]

Thank you!

I didn't know you could upload whole documents. Amazing!

/Per